Subject: Re: VCS comparison table

From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 05:00:28 -0500

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 11:30:14PM -0400 I heard the voice of
Sean, and lo! it spake thus:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:23:37 -0400
> Jeff Licquia <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > OK.  So you are conflating the two.  Could someone who isn't
> > comment?
> 
> No, actually i'm not.  Single revno's or your dotted revno's _both_
> have the same property.

I think Jeff's actually meaning the other way around.  We're confident
through experience of the utility of the single revnos.  We're NOT (at
least, I'm not) so convinced of the utility and usability of the
dotted ones; they haven't gone through the crucible of experience yet.

During the dotted-decimal discussion, I favored numbering from the
merge point (rather than the ancestral point) for a lot of the same
reasons brought up here.  e.g., the log-ish output would look
something like:

200
199
 199.3
 199.2
 199.1
198
[...]

See <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar-ng/2006q3/017773.html>
for instance.

Of course, now we have them, and they  number from ancestors.  So
after that's in a couple releases, we'll get to see how it works in
practice.

-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  [email-masked]
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.